1 place holder for image center for sustainable landscapes pittsburgh, pa daniel zartman |...

1

PLACE HOLDER FOR IMAGE

Center for Sustainable Landscapes Pittsburgh, PA

Daniel Zartman | ConstructionAdvisor : Dr. Robert Leicht

Daniel Zartman | ConstructionAdvisor : Dr. Robert Leicht

Images courtesy of the Design Alliance Architects

Center for Sustainable LandscapesPittsburgh, PA

Daniel Zartman | ConstructionProject Background

2


Daniel Zartman | Construction

Presentation Outline:I. Project Background

I. General Information

II. Building Information

II. Analysis 1: Critical Industry Issue

III. Analysis 2: Constructability

IV. Analysis 3: Value Engineering

V. Analysis 4: Schedule Acceleration

VI. Final Recommendations

VII.Acknowledgements

General Project Information: Owner: Phipps Conservatory Contractor: Turner Construction Location: Schenley Park,

Pittsburgh, PA Function: Mixed Use

(Office/Education)

Building Size : Area: 24,350 GSF Height: 40’- 4” (3 Stories)

Project Size: Contract Value: $10 Million ($410

per SF) Project Type: New Construction Project Duration: 11 Months

Images Courtesy of Microsoft Corporation

Images Courtesy of Turner Construction


Daniel Zartman | ConstructionProject Background

3



Structural System: Substructure: Concrete Strip/Spread Footing Superstructure: Braced Steel Frame

Building Envelope: Exterior Walls: 8” Metal Stud w/ Reclaimed Barn Wood Facade 7,600 SF Green Roof

Sustainable Achievements: LEED Platinum Living Building Challenge SITES Certification for Landscapes Net-Zero Annual Energy Consumption Net-Zero Annual Water Consumption

Images Courtesy of Turner Construction

Presentation Outline:I. Project Background

I. General Information

II. Building Information

II. Analysis 1: Critical Industry Issue




VI. Final Recommendations

VII.Acknowledgements



Analysis 1: Critical Industry Issue - Avoiding Traditional Delivery Methods on Publicly

Funded Projects

4



State requirements for publicly funded projects: Traditional Design – Bid – Build Hard-bid Multiple Prime Contracts

Problems: Does not adequately address the needs of complex projects Does not incentivize the contractor to minimize schedule and

cost growth

Critical Industry Issue: Legislation in Pennsylvania prevents public projects from utilizing progressive delivery systems.

Presentation Outline:I. Project BackgroundII. Analysis 1: Critical

Industry IssueI. OverviewII. ResearchIII. Results/Conclusion




VI. Final RecommendationsVII.Acknowledgements





Funded Projects

5



Funding Types: Private Public Combination


Research Goal: To create a decision tree that illustrates the progressive alternatives available to Penn State’s OPP.











Funded Projects

6



Project Features Analyzed: Funding Type Delivery System Contract Type Procurement Method

Industry Members Interviewed: John Bechtel – Asst. Director of Design and Construction at

Penn State‘s OPP James Hostetler – Director of Construction and Design at

Bucknell University Kristine Retetagos – VP Preconstruction Turner Construction

Pittsburgh Tim Gilotti – Radner Property Group Jeff Sandeen - Hensel Phelps Construction Co Mike Arnold – Foreman Group Elizabeth O’Reilly - Deputy Secretary of Pennsylvania’s Public

Works


Research Goal: To create a decision tree that illustrates the progressive alternatives available to Penn State’s OPP.

Research Method: Analyze projects completed in PA by public and private owners using public funding.











Funded Projects

7



Penn State’s Office of Physical Plant:

Operates as an extension of DGS Public funding types most

commonly received: Delegated (most common) – OPP

is given money with specific use Non-Delegated (uncommon) –

DGS stays heavily involved










Funded Projects

8



Projects Researched: SCI Benner: Design-Build, GMP Bucknell University Bookstore: Design-Bid-Build, CM At-Risk,

GMP Center for Sustainable Landscapes: Design-Bid-Build, CM At-

Risk, GMP

The Decision Tree: Illustrates the influence funding has on procurement, delivery and contract methods

Black Diamonds: Represent questions that can be answered by OPP project staff

Red Diamonds: Represent decisions that are made by the Government

Green Boxes: Display the conditional procurement methods

Penn State’s Office of Physical Plant:

Operates as an extension of DGS Public funding types most

commonly received: Delegated (most common) – OPP

is given money with specific use Non-Delegated (uncommon) –

DGS stays heavily involved










Funded Projects

9



Project: SCI Benner Project Synopsis: $174 million new

construction of a 2,000 bed medium security prison

Location: Bellefonte, PA Owner: Department of General

Services Delivery Method: Design-Build Contract Type: GMP Procurement Method: Best Value


Industry IssueI. OverviewII. ResearchIII.Results/

ConclusionIII. Analysis 2:

Constructability IV. Analysis 3: Value

EngineeringV. Analysis 4: Schedule

AccelerationVI. Final RecommendationsVII.Acknowledgements




Funded Projects

10



Project: SCI Benner Project Synopsis: $174 million new

construction of a 2,000 bed medium security prison

Location: Bellefonte, PA Owner: Department of General

Services Delivery Method: Design-Build Contract Type: GMP Procurement Method: Best Value

Conclusions: Project Exemption is Plausible Provided exemption is approved by DGS Provided exemption is authorized by Legislation

Recommendations 2 out of 3 owners analyzed utilized a traditional delivery

system despite exemption Pursue the use of contemporary delivery methods when

necessary


Industry IssueI. OverviewII. ResearchIII.Results/

ConclusionIII. Analysis 2:

Constructability IV. Analysis 3: Value





Analysis 2: Constructability – Alternative Design of Atrium

11



Problem Identification: 2-Story radiused cast-in-place concrete atrium stair Labor intensive Produces a large amount of onsite waste



Industry IssueIII.Analysis 2:

ConstructabilityI. OverviewII. Alternative Design III. Results/Conclusion







12




Research Goal: Develop an alternative atrium design that: Improves Constructability at a minimal cost Maintains the spaces passive performance Aesthetically pleasing











13




Research Goal: Develop an alternative atrium design that: Improves Constructability at a minimal cost Maintains the spaces passive performance Aesthetically pleasing

Proposed Solution: Structural steel stair Transfer thermal mass to atrium walls











14



Changes to Original Design in Alternative Design Alternative Stair

Structural Steel Rectilinear Self-supporting

Imagery based off of one provided by The Design Alliance Architects

Alternative Design (Below)

Original Design (Below)



ConstructabilityI. OverviewII. Alternative

Design III. Results/Conclusion







15



Changes to Original Design in Alternative Design: Alternative Stair

Structural Steel Rectilinear Self-supporting

Alternative Design (Below)

Original Design (Below)

Alternative Wall Design Inc. thickness of concrete by

3 inches Net decrease in concrete: 3

cubic yards



ConstructabilityI. OverviewII. Alternative








16



Schedule Impacts: Original Design: 20 days Alternative Design: 10 days (phased

with steel erection) Not located on critical path



ConstructabilityI. OverviewII. Alternative Design III.Results/

Conclusion IV. Analysis 3: Value






17





Cost Comparison

Original Design - Cost of Concrete Stair $ 49,950.00

Alternative Design - Total Cost $ 119,707.63

Alternative Design - Cost of Steel Stair $ 105,603.65

Alternative Design - Increase in Wall Thicknesses

$ 14,103.98

Net Increase in Alternative Design over Original Design

$ 69,757.63

Cost Summary: Net Increase: $70,000 Resulting from:

No central support added approximately $25,000 Increased connections costs Increased structural steel costs

Terrazzo finishes added approximately $15,000










18





Alternative Design Conclusions: Not Recommended Pros

Comparably Sustainable Minimizes Construction Waste Improves Aesthetics Reduces Schedule by 10 days

Cons Significantly increased material cost

Recommendations Make adjustments to reduce cost:

Replace terrazzo Add column

Cost Comparison

Original Design - Cost of Concrete Stair $ 49,950.00

Alternative Design - Total Cost $ 119,707.63

Alternative Design - Cost of Steel Stair $ 105,603.65

Alternative Design - Increase in Wall Thicknesses

$ 14,103.98

Net Increase in Alternative Design over Original Design

$ 69,757.63

Cost Summary: Net Increase: $70,000 Resulting from:

No central support added approximately $25,000 Increased connections costs Increased structural steel costs

Terrazzo finishes added approximately $15,000









Analysis 3: Value Engineering – Redesign of Raised Floor Distribution System

19



Images courtesy of kingspan.com/raised_flooring/full.jpg

Images courtesy of accessfloorsystems.com

Problem Identification: Raised Floor Distribution Plenum Higher system costs Increased building height from redundant plenum spaces


Industry IssueIII. Analysis 2:

ConstructabilityIV.Analysis 3: Value

EngineeringI. OverviewII. Alternative Design III. Results/Conclusion






20






Research Goal: Reduce system cost without compromising performance Improve constructability










21






Research Goal: Reduce system cost without compromising performance Improve constructability

Proposed Solution: Relocated HVAC distribution to above the ceiling










22



Original Design 14” Raised Access Floor System In-floor electrical distribution

Alternative Design Lowered the ceiling 6” Reduced building height by 8” Maintained High Volume/Low

Velocity flow rate

Alternative Design: Above Ceiling Distribution Original Design: Raised Floor Distribution

Alternative Design: First Floor

Alternative Design: Second FloorPresentation Outline:I. Project BackgroundII. Analysis 1: Critical



EngineeringI. OverviewII. Alternative







23



Schedule Impacts: Original Design: 16 days Alternative Design: 24 days Neither designs were located on the

Critical PathSchedule Durations for Raised Floor Analysis

SystemSchedule Duration

(Days)Total Man

HoursCrew Size

Raised Floor Dist. 16 480 6Ceiling Dist. 24 581 3




EngineeringI. OverviewII. Alternative Design III.Results/

Conclusion V. Analysis 4: Schedule





24




Critical Path

Cost Impacts 46% Decrease in cost Indirect Costs

Reduction in building height (credit)

Flooring Cost Schedule Durations for Raised Floor Analysis


(Days)Total Man

HoursCrew Size


Total System ComparisonsRaised Floor Distribution System - Total Cost $ 110,000.00 Raised Floor - Material Cost $ 76,000.00 Raised Floor - Labor Cost $ 34,000.00 Ceiling Distribution System $ 50,838.00 Ceiling - Material Cost $ 7,696.00Ceiling - Labor Cost $ 19,620.00 Indirect Costs $ 23,521.00Net Decrease in System Cost: $ 59,162.00 Total Man Hours: 581 hrs

Electrical Distribution Contingency

Sales Tax Credit













Critical Path

Cost Impacts 46% Decrease in cost Indirect Costs

Reduction in building height (credit)

Flooring Cost Schedule Durations for Raised Floor Analysis


(Days)Total Man

HoursCrew Size


Total System ComparisonsRaised Floor Distribution System - Total Cost $ 110,000.00 Raised Floor - Material Cost $ 76,000.00 Raised Floor - Labor Cost $ 34,000.00 Ceiling Distribution System $ 50,838.00 Ceiling - Material Cost $ 7,696.00Ceiling - Labor Cost $ 19,620.00 Indirect Costs $ 23,521.00Net Decrease in System Cost: $ 59,162.00 Total Man Hours: 581 hrs

Alternative Design Conclusions: Added 100 hours of work Reduced cost by approximately $59,000 Recommendations: Met analysis goal to increase project’s value Pursue alternative design based on significant decrease

in system cost Marginal compromises in value

Electrical Distribution Contingency

Sales Tax Credit









Analysis 4: Schedule Acceleration –Alternative Wall System

26



Problem Identification: 8” Metal Stud Exterior wall Time and Labor intensive Located on the Critical Path Produces a large amount of waste onsite

Images courtesy of sips.org




ConstructabilityIV. Analysis 3: Value


AccelerationI. OverviewII. Alternative Design III. Structural BreadthIV. Results/Conclusion





27




Research Goal: Develop alternative design Decreases the project schedule












28




Research Goal: Develop alternative design Decreases the project schedule

Proposed Solution: Structural Insulated Panel System (SIPS) High performance wall type composed of:

OSB Sheathing EPS (Expanded Polystyrene) Foam Core

Increase superstructure to accommodate additional load












29



Original Design 8” Metal Stud Framing 2” Rigid Board Insulation 5/8” Fiberglass-matt gypsum

board

Alternative Design 10 ¼” SIP Panel





AccelerationI. OverviewII. Alternative

DesignIII. Structural Breadth IV. Results/Conclusion





30



Structural Impacts: Structural Breadth Original Stud Wall: 45 PLF Alternative SIP Wall: 75 PLF

Results: W12x19 Spandrel Beams were

found to be inadequate Max. Allowable Def. = 1.07”

Deflection = 1.3” Max. Allowable Bending Moment

= 55.9 ft-kips Bending Moment = 82.2 ft-

kips W12x26 Spandrel Beams were

found to be adequate HSS 6x6x5/8 Columns were found

to be adequate





AccelerationI. OverviewII. Alternative DesignIII.Structural

Breadth IV. Results/Conclusion





31



Structural Impacts: Structural Breadth Original Stud Wall: 45 PLF Alternative SIP Wall: 75 PLF

Results: W12x19 Spandrel Beams were

found to be inadequate Max. Allowable Def. = 1.07”

Deflection = 1.3” Max. Allowable Bending Moment

= 55.9 ft-kips Bending Moment = 82.2 ft-

kips W12x26 Spandrel Beams were

found to be adequate HSS 6x6x5/8 Columns were found

to be adequate

Sustainability Provides superior conductive and

convective performance No additional LEED points gained

Relative R-Value ComparisonR-Value Original Design 25.3 2" Rigid Board Insulation 8 5/8” Fiberglass-mat 8 8" Wall Cavity 9.3R-Value Alternative Design 35 (2) 7/16" OSB Sheathing 1 10 1/4" SIP w/ EPS Core 34





AccelerationI. OverviewII. Alternative DesignIII. Structural Breadth IV.Results/

Conclusion VI. Final RecommendationsVII.Acknowledgements




32



Schedule Impacts: Reduced the project schedule by a

total of 8 days Allowed Glazing to begin 8 days

earlier than the original scheduleSchedule Durations for Façade Analysis

SystemSchedule

Duration (Days)Total Man

HoursCrew Size

8” Metal Stud Framing 16 770 6SIP Wall Panel 8 320 5










33





earlier than the original schedule

Cost Impacts: SIP System Cost w/ General Conditions Savings:

$74,920 Includes increased cost of superstructure of $2,578

Schedule Durations for Façade Analysis

SystemSchedule


HoursCrew Size


Façade Estimate SummaryTotal Original Metal Stud Wall System

$ 71,216

Original Design Labor Cost $

42,508

Original Design Material Cost $

25,708Adjusted Total Alternative Wall System Cost

$ 74,920

Total Alternative SIP Wall System $

88,382

Alt. Design Labor Costs $

37,594

Alt. Design Material Costs $

50,789

Estimated General Conditions Savings $

(13,462.00)

Net Increase in Cost $

3,704










34





earlier than the original schedule

Cost Impacts: SIP System Cost w/ General Conditions Savings:

$74,920 Includes increased cost of superstructure of $2,578

Schedule Durations for Façade Analysis

SystemSchedule


HoursCrew Size


Façade Estimate SummaryTotal Original Metal Stud Wall System

$ 71,216

Original Design Labor Cost $

42,508

Original Design Material Cost $

25,708Adjusted Total Alternative Wall System Cost

$ 74,920

Total Alternative SIP Wall System $

88,382

Alt. Design Labor Costs $

37,594

Alt. Design Material Costs $

50,789

Estimated General Conditions Savings $

(13,462.00)

Net Increase in Cost $

3,704

Alternative Wall Construction Design Conclusions: Reduces project schedule by 8 days Increases Superstructure Improves the performance of the building envelope Marginal increase in cost Recommendations: Met analysis goal to reduce project schedule Pursue alternative design as specified due to significant

schedule savings








Daniel Zartman | ConstructionRecommendation/Conclusion

35



Analysis 1: Critical Industry Issue - Avoiding Traditional Delivery Methods on Publicly Funded Projects Project exemption can be gained by OPP

Analysis 2: Constructability – Alternative Design of Atrium Rejected alternative design due to substantial increases in cost

Analysis 3: Value Engineering – Redesign of Raised Floor Distribution System Accepted above ceiling distribution system as a result of the

significant cost savings

Analysis 4: Schedule Acceleration –Alternative Wall System Accepted Structural Insulated Panel System as a result of

reduced schedule and marginal increase in cost





AccelerationVI.Final

RecommendationsVII.Acknowledgements




Daniel Zartman | ConstructionQuestions

36



Special Acknowledgements:Dr. Robert Leicht – CM Faculty AdvisorMegan Corrie, Kristine Retetagos of Turner Construction contacts and project sponsors Owner Phipps Conservatory David Zartman and staff of Zartman ConstructionJames Hostetler Director of Construction and Design Bucknell UniversityJohn Bechtel Assistant Director of Design and Construction of Penn State OPPTim Gilotti of Radner Property GroupJeff Sandeen of Hensel Phelps Construction Co.








1 place holder for image center for sustainable landscapes pittsburgh, pa daniel zartman |...

Documents

image center

public projects

funded projects

project backgroundanalysis

robert leicht images

value engineeringanalysis

sf project type

stories project size